*Official* New Zealand in India Thread

[Choora]

Its Amazing Choora, for how long you were absent.

As soon as an India thread start, you are here.

Where were you in the last few months?

I was actually very busy and wasn't getting much time to visit this website, and one doesn't really need to wait for a particular thread to get started to post his comments, one can just start such a thread oneselves .

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Lol!

typical

 

[marc71178]

That doesn't look good which is obvious, comming up with selective example to suit one's argument is indeed smart. What about India's performance in WC?& in matches played in England ?

You said the rating (based over 3 years) is bad because India have had good results in the last year.

I point out that in 3 of their 5 series they've had terrible results, in one they scraped a win thanks to a once-in-a-lifetime stand and in the other they did OK, but still lost it in the end.

So that suggests to me that your argument is based on a load of rubbish.

As for ur comment on India's reaction to test ranking, i think its safe to say now that had the Oneday ranking been correct they wouldn't had critisized it either!

Funny how 9 of the 10 Test playing sides haven't complained about it - only 1 does, and that is because they happened to hit form in a one month spell (out of the 3 years the rankings encompass)

 

[Choora]

You said the rating (based over 3 years) is bad because India have had good results in the last year.

I point out that in 3 of their 5 series they've had terrible results, in one they scraped a win thanks to a once-in-a-lifetime stand and in the other they did OK, but still lost it in the end.

So that suggests to me that your argument is based on a load of rubbish.

Since the beginning of 2002 , India has played 21 onedayers, won 14 and lost only 6.Their winning ratio is 70 percent which is certainly not bad!!!

In three years a lot have changed, Azharuddin is no longer in the team, nor is Robin singh , Jadeja and others. Yuvraj, Mongia & Kaif were not even in the team in the early part of 2001, while Prasad and Sri nath were India's main bowlers back then.

The rating shouldn't be based on results of matches over 3 years!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The rating shouldn't be based on results of matches over 3 years!

The ratings are most accurate when as many teams as possible play each other. This is only feasible over a 3-yr period.

 

[marc71178]

Since the beginning of 2002 , India has played 21 onedayers, won 14 and lost only 6.Their winning ratio is 70 percent which is certainly not bad!!!

Actually, in the last 12 months alone, they've lost 5 to NZ and 4 to WI - yet you ignore those figures and still claim India to have had a great last year?

The rating shouldn't be based on results of matches over 3 years!

What do you base it on then - last match?

 

[Choora]

Actually, in the last 12 months alone, they've lost 5 to NZ and 4 to WI - yet you ignore those figures and still claim India to have had a great last year?

I somehow made a mistake while getting those stats from cricinfo.During the last one year India actually played 45 ODI, won 27 and lost 14. So their winning ratio is 66%

What do you base it on then - last match?

That was a asinine comment

The ranking should cover a period of 1 year atmost, and i think the ICC is going to change the present ODI ranking sooner or later!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Right, India's last 12 months (since September 2002)

3-4 v West Indies (HOME)

2-5 v New Zealand (AWAY)

10-2 in World Cup

15-11 (58%), including Namibia and Holland once.

Capiche?

 

[marc71178]

The ranking should cover a period of 1 year atmost, and i think the ICC is going to change the present ODI ranking sooner or later!

Why when all but 1 side agrees?

If it's 1 year, about one third of the teams will have played each other - and you want to base a world ranking on that (ironically the last 12 months would actually make India look worse, but I guess you've not taken that into account?)

 

[Tim]

I don't think the pitches in the ODI series between NZ & Ind can be blamed either...definately the tests but not the ODI's.

Only 2 of the 7 pitches were probably not good enough.

 

[marc71178]

Point is though Tim, the pitches are the same for both teams, so that is no excuse!

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Who would you guys pick for a XI to start in the 1st test for NZ and India in batting order

 

[Tim]

Good point Reuben.

Um, I dunno about India but for NZ i'd think:

Mark Richardson
Lou Vincent
Stephen Fleming
Nathan Astle
Craig McMillan
Scott Styris
Jacob Oram
Robbie Hart
Daniel Vettori
Daryl Tuffey
Michael Mason

Possibly Styris & Oram are fighting for the #6 position where NZ may look to include either Wiseman or another pace bowler.
Personally i'd choose that lineup..the batting goes down to Vettori & you've got the 3 strike bowlers in Tuffey, Mason & Oram..plus Vettori, McMillan, Styris & Astle.
I also heard that Richardson may roll his arm over should NZ go with only 1 main spin bowler.

 

[masterblaster]

India:

Sehwag
Gambhir
Dravid
Tendulkar
Ganguly (Captain)
Laxman
Thilak Naidu (W/K)
Harbhajan
Kumble
Zaheer
Aavishkar Salvi

I think this is perhaps the best combination India can have. On slow, low pitches and in a test match, India doesn't really need a specialist 5th bowler. Tendulkar has been bowling fantastically as of late and can be a fifth option. Salvi is ready for test cricket, so is Gambhir who is a solid opener in my eyes.

Its a bit unfair to Parthiv Patel that he's dropped from my team, but Thilak is a much more promising and talented batsman and equally sound (but not flash) with the gloves.

 

[Tim]

I doubt Gambhir or Salvi will be playing the 1st test anyway, because they've been selected for the U23 Trophy tournament in Sri Lanka.

 

[Craig]

Good point Reuben.

Um, I dunno about India but for NZ i'd think:

Mark Richardson
Lou Vincent
Stephen Fleming
Nathan Astle
Craig McMillan
Scott Styris
Jacob Oram
Robbie Hart
Daniel Vettori
Daryl Tuffey
Michael Mason

Possibly Styris & Oram are fighting for the #6 position where NZ may look to include either Wiseman or another pace bowler.
Personally i'd choose that lineup..the batting goes down to Vettori & you've got the 3 strike bowlers in Tuffey, Mason & Oram..plus Vettori, McMillan, Styris & Astle.
I also heard that Richardson may roll his arm over should NZ go with only 1 main spin bowler.

I do think Wiseman will play. That is one of the reasons why Rob Nicol should be picked for NZ because of his ability to bowl spin.

 

[Tim]

Im not really sure if Nicol is a good enough spinner to be used at International level..I know he was relatively successful for the NZ U19's as a spinner.

Auckland started using him as an all-rounder, but last season he pretty much became a batsman who bowled occassionally.

 

[Craig]

And he can bowl m,edium pace as well. I havent seen him bowl though.

 

[Tim]

According to my sources, while he was at Kings College in Auckland a couple of years back he was their fastest bowler by a mile..but apparently slowed right down to medium for some reason I don't know.

He'd be very handy if he could bowl accurate medium pacers & some decent offie's.

 

[marc71178]

India:

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!! :!( :!( :!(